Wal-Mart is reportedly holding mandatory meetings warning its store managers that a Democratic victory could be bad for the stores since it could lead to unionization — news that that is likely to stir up a hornet’s nest of political trouble for the world’s mega-retailer.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart.
In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.
It’s mandatory, which means the move is going to come under fire in what is shaping up to be a close, bitterly-fought election contest.
According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.
(See UPDATE below since an AP story has a more extensive corporate denial.)
Two things about this:
1. The Journal got confirmation from employees in several states, so the story should be considered to be journalistically solid.
2. From the corporate standpoint, these concerns are real, valid and definitely out there. That part isn’t what will get Wal-Mart in trouble with those who want to see a change in the party administering the federal government and more Democratic Congressional victories. Unionization would mean higher costs for the corporation. Fact. BUT it’s the mandatory nature of the meetings — and what seems to be a not-quite stated instruction:
The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don’t specifically tell attendees how to vote in November’s election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.
“The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union,'” said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said.
The story has been denied by a Wal-Mart spokesman, that the corp. was telling anyone how to vote and that if that was the case it would be “wrong and without approval.”
But it’s harder to make the case that this story is merely misunderstanding or run due to a political axe to grind since (1) it appears in the Wall Street Journal, which has never been confused with The Nation magazine and (2) the story involved multiple sourcing.
The likely impact?
It’ll become a big story on progressive talk radio (an increasingly hard-to-find entity in broadcasting) and most likely a huge issue on progressive blogs. And although Wal-Mart is unlikely to be seriously hurt by it, some who don’t want to see the GOP in power will decide their money might better be spent visiting a local Target store.
Another likely impact: it’ll spur on those within Wal-Mart and outside the company who are clamoring for the company to unionize or pay better benefits because the story shows at least some corporate messages basically urging a holding-pattern voting in November — and a corporation that feels deeply enough about what November could bring to send out bigwigs to talk to store managers.
UJPDATE: An AP story has a stronger denial from the company. Here are the key quotes:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize.
….Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company’s stand on the legislation is no secret.
“We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it,” he said.
But he said the company wasn’t advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation.
“If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression… they are wrong and acting without approval,” said Tovar. In fact, he said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats.
“Half of our (political action committee) contributions are to members of each party,” Tovar said. “We regularly educate our associates on issues which impact our company, and this is an example of that.”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.